Which is better, the Bren or MG42? A debate almost as old as the weapons themselves

[Centurian52]

I've made a Bren vs MG42 thread before. But the subject of that thread was accuracy, so I figured I had better make a new thread if I wanted to do a more general comparison between the two.

Before I get started, it's important to recognize that in any Bren vs MG42 debate, we're exclusively talking about the MG42 in it's LMG configuration. The MG42 was what we would now call a General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG). In various configurations it could serve in a Light Machine Gun (LMG) role, a Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) role (though we would refer to it as a medium machine gun in this role these days, since it wasn't firing large caliber ammunition), an anti-aircraft role, or as a tank machine gun (though in practice the MG34 was retained as the preferred tank machine gun). But it's only in its LMG configuration that it's filling the same role for the German army that the Bren filled for Commonwealth armies. Perhaps it might be worth doing a comparison between an HMG MG42 and an M1919 at some point. In its LMG configuration it is mounted on a bipod, and its belt is feeding from a 50 round drum. So it is firing from about as stable of a mount as the Bren, and it will need to reload about as frequently as the Bren.

To those of us who have played any of the western front WW2 CM titles, the answer seems obvious. We all know how difficult it is to gain fire superiority over German opponents when we play as Commonwealth forces. And that comes down to the simple fact that the German machineguns are pouring out more firepower than the Commonwealth Brens. So clearly, the MG42 is better. But I'm starting to suspect that the Bren's top-loading mechanism for speeding up assisted loading, which isn't modeled in Combat Mission (I'm guessing it might be difficult to get the engine to account for whether there is an assistant nearby (it's always possible that the gunner is the last man left), possibly making this feature more difficult to implement than it's worth), makes more of a difference than I had previously realized.

Both the Bren and MG42 are crew served weapons. Meaning that, assuming the chaos of battle hasn't left the gunner alone, he would be assisted in reloading the weapon by an assistant gunner/loader. Assisted loading might shave a couple seconds off of the time it takes to reload the MG42 in-game. It would shave considerably more time off the time it takes to reload the Bren. When he's being assisted, all the Bren gunner has to do is reach up to grab the empty magazine out of the gun, which will be followed moments later by the no. 2 gunner punching the next magazine into the top of the gun. The whole process takes so little time that it might be mistaken for a regular pause between bursts. Meaning that the Bren can pour out almost completely uninterrupted fire for as long as the section has magazines to keep feeding into it. The frequent pauses in firing we see in-game for loading would appear to almost vanish (the unassisted loading currently in game looks like it might take about enough time to dump another 30 round magazine, so with assisted loading Bren gunners in-game might put out nearly twice as much firepower as they currently do).

Anytime this debate is raised, overheating and barrel changes need to be mentioned. The MG42's higher rate of fire meant that it would overheat faster. The Bren's slower rate of fire meant it would take longer to overheat, but it would still overheat eventually. Which is why both machine guns had fast and convenient procedures for replacing a hot barrel with a cold barrel. The MG42 barrel change procedure might actually be a bit faster than the Bren barrel change (haven't timed them, but it looks a wee bit faster), but I think I actually prefer the Bren barrel change overall. Bren barrels had a handle, which made it easy to change out a hot barrel without actually touching the barrel itself. The MG42's barrel had to be taken out with a glove in order to avoid touching the hot barrel directly (though if you lost the glove you could tip the barrel out). Because the MG42 would overheat faster, a German squad would carry multiple spare barrels (I heard they would have six spare barrels, but does anyone know if this is right? Or is this figure for an HMG team?), while a Commonwealth section would only have one spare barrel for the Bren. But carrying so many additional spare barrels apparently didn't encumber German squads to an unreasonable degree. Overall, overheating seems to have been perfectly manageable for the MG42, but it's one more factor that favors the Bren. Overheating and barrel changes, like assisted loading, are also not modeled in Combat Mission. But since barrel changes would be less frequent than reloading, it would probably make much less of a difference than assisted loading (though if overheating was modeled, it would put a cap on how much sustained fire the BAR could put out, since it didn't have a quick-change barrel at all and the gunner would simply have to wait for it to cool down).

There are also a pair of myths, which I've mentioned a couple times in other threads, that the Bren was extremely accurate, and that the MG42 was extremely inaccurate. This was the main subject of another thread, so I won't go into too much detail here. But as far as I can tell they probably had about the same accuracy, about 4-5 MOA. Whatever advantages the Bren had over the MG42, apparently accuracy wasn't one of them.

As the title of this post implied, there have been arguments about which weapon was better overall almost since they first came up against each other. My current thinking probably wouldn't be very satisfying to either side of the issue. I think they're probably either about equal, or the MG42 is slightly better (but not by a large margin). The MG42 could put out extremely lethal bursts of fire, while the Bren could pour out a nearly uninterrupted stream of sustained fire. In some situations the MG42's more lethal bursts of fire will be more of an advantage (higher chance of inflicting casualties on briefly exposed infantry). And in some situations the Bren's more continuous fire will be more of an advantage (suppressed infantry might be less likely to be able to take advantage of pauses in firing to poke their heads up or make a dash for it). Because Combat Mission doesn't model assisted loading, we only see the MG42's lethal bursts of fire, and not the Bren's sustained fire. Which is why the MG42 appears to be better in Combat Mission. Hopefully CM3 will model assisted loading, allowing us to get a higher fidelity comparison between the two. Even if, once assisted loading is accounted for, one still ends up proving better than the other, I think there can be no doubt that both were excellent machine guns.

But what do you think? Have I overestimated the importance of assisted loading? Have I underestimated the importance of overheating and barrel changes? How likely are these factors to be modeled in CM3? Do you think one of these weapons is clearly better than the other?

[FlemFire]

The weapons serve different functions so they're kinda hard to compare. Having played through most campaigns/scenarios, I can say that I never paused and went "uh oh, a Bren" whereas the MG42 unexpectedly rearing its head was often akin to getting smacked across the face. In-game, the MG42 on a pod is possibly the deadliest anti-personnel you can put into the hands of infantry. I'm not sure what the soft factors are for the Bren but having used it I didn't notice anything lacking per se, it effectively does what you expect it to do. I think it's closer comparison is maybe the BAR, of which the Bren is better, IMO, though the American squads overall end up having way more firepower thanks to the Garands mostly.

[Halmbarte]

I think the best answer to the debate is that the MG42 is still being manufactured and in service (as the MG3). Plus the whole GPMG class of weapon introduced by the MG34 and MG42 is used by every army in the world while mag loaded LSWs are not. 

 

H

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

I think the best answer to the debate is that the MG42 is still being manufactured and in service (as the MG3). Plus the whole GPMG class of weapon introduced by the MG34 and MG42 is used by every army in the world while mag loaded LSWs are not. 

 

H

Bren is the better Light MG and the MG-3 is the better multi purpose MG. Bren is liked on patrol it is light and magazine fed. 

['Sapper']

7 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

I think the best answer to the debate is that the MG42 is still being manufactured and in service (as the MG3). Plus the whole GPMG class of weapon introduced by the MG34 and MG42 is used by every army in the world while mag loaded LSWs are not. 

 

H

India still manufactures and uses the 7.62 variant of the Bren.

[Halmbarte]

3 hours ago, 'Sapper' said:

India still manufactures and uses the 7.62 variant of the Bren.

As their general issue support weapon or for reserve troops? 

H

[Bulletpoint]

On 2/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, FlemFire said:

In-game, the MG42 on a pod is possibly the deadliest anti-personnel you can put into the hands of infantry.

50 Cal is better though. And the M1919A6 is very close.

Also, sniper rifles are more than twice as effective as the HMG42 once you get out past 300-400m distance.

['Sapper']

5 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

As their general issue support weapon or for reserve troops? 

H

More used as a supplement to more modern LMG/GPMG due to the large numbers available. 

[Brille]

Being a general purpose machine gun I give the MG42 an edge over the Bren.

Including to this is the belt feeding system. While in squads the germans usually would feed shorter belts, they at least had the possibility to feed longer ones or link shorter ones together, according to the situation they were in (Attack/defence).

Assisted reloading might be a bit longer maybe but not that it would matter that much I would say.

However you can say that you would need to change out barrels much more frequently which leads to longer down times.

On the other hand you can say if you can put out bullets faster on target and pin or destroy it quicker (in theory) then that is a mission accomplished.

Both have their pros and cons in the end.

[MikeyD]

Bren and BAR do have their modern equivalents, more-or-less, in the proliferation of big bullet 7.62 sharpshooter rifles like M110. You want something that can reach out to targets beyond your infantry carbine's reach. Are they better than M249 and M240 mgs? Well, they're different than them. They're certainly less cumbersome while maneuvering and they're less conspicuous to anyone who may be looking for something to mortar. Modern conflicts are now circling back to WWII-style warfighting where sustained fire for area denial is a desirable option again. 

[Centurian52]

I wasn't expecting this thread to suddenly get a burst of attention. To reiterate, it's not a question of which is better in CM. We all know the MG42 is better in-game. So really it's a question of how important the features that aren't modeled in CM are. Both assisted loading and overheating/barrel changes are elements that would move the needle in the Bren's favor if they were modeled. But by how much?

On 2/20/2024 at 12:12 PM, FlemFire said:

I think it's closer comparison is maybe the BAR, of which the Bren is better

That's interesting. I remember that I used to think of the Bren as being more similar to the BAR than the MG42, back when the only contexts I had seen it in were Call of Duty and CMBN. But having learned more about the real weapons (including what isn't modeled in CM) I really think it has far more in common with the MG42 than it does with the BAR. Both the Bren and MG42 are crew served weapons. The BAR is not. Both the Bren and the MG42 have quick-change barrels. The BAR does not. Both the Bren and MG42 are the backbone of their respective squads in a way that the BAR just isn't. The US squad isn't built around the BAR the way the British section is built around the Bren or the German gruppe is built around the MG42.

These are both supposed to be crew-served weapons. They can both be operated by a single gunner, but you can't really get the most out of either of them that way. But CM2 doesn't really seem to know how to treat squad LMGs like crew-served weapons, so we see them both as they would be operated by a single gunner, without an assistant. I think this affects the Bren more, and mostly when it comes to loading. Those 30 round magazines would probably feel like much less of a limitation if the time it took to changes magazines was cut by half or more. 

In CM the Bren is only a bit better than the BAR. In-game the BAR will dump its 20 round magazine and the Bren will dump its 30 round magazine, they will both take about the same amount of time to reload, and then they'll keep going at that rate for as long as there is ammunition. But imagine for a moment, not a CM scenario, but a real Bren and BAR firing side by side. The Bren is operated by a 2 or 3 man team (just like an MG42), while the BAR is operated by a single gunner. After they have each dumped their first magazine the Bren team will be reloaded and halfway to dumping their second magazine well before the BAR gunner has finished reloading. Eventually the Bren overheats. The hot barrel is removed and replaced with the spare barrel in a matter of seconds (just like an MG42). Eventually the BAR overheats. The BAR gunner is SOL.

On 2/20/2024 at 12:12 PM, FlemFire said:

The weapons serve different functions so they're kinda hard to compare.

That's why I limited the comparison to the MG42 in its LMG configuration (bipod, 50-round drum). In its LMG configuration it is serving precisely the same function as the Bren. In that configuration it is the squad automatic weapon, forming the backbone of every German rifle squad just as the Bren forms the backbone of every British rifle section.

On 2/22/2024 at 11:44 PM, Brille said:

Being a general purpose machine gun I give the MG42 an edge over the Bren.

Yeah, overall I still think the MG42 is probably better than the Bren. But I don't think I can ever be completely sure unless assisted loading and overheating are modeled in CM3  (that's my personal feature request, if anyone important happens to read this). The point always brought up by the Bren's defenders is just how rapidly the magazine can be swapped out by the assistant. And the point always brought up by the MG42's detractors is just how rapidly it overheats. So these are the points that need to be tested in order to fully resolve the question.

Edited February 26 by Centurian52

[Brille]

@Centurian52 I watched a YouTube video from Lindybeige once who compared the "Spandaus" with the Bren and give it a little praise.

He also came up with most of your arguments.

I guess it is not the matter of "which one is better". Both weapons were made with different mind sets and therefore have different properties.

It is like the old debate of which bolt action of ww 2 is better.

I often read that the Kar 98k has an advantage in accuracy above all the other ones even the Enfield. But more accuracy by what is not so often stated if at all and If it really had much of an impact on the battlefield.

And in the end just because one weapons is good or better in one or multiple aspects doesnt make the other ones bad or worthless.

 

I have fired the MG3 2 or 3 times back in my conscription days and could not hit the broadside of a barn with it.

But we only got something around 30 rounds for each of the instances which would be somewhat of 2 to 3 bursts when you are not yet trained in firecontrol. So besides of me being a lousy shot we got not much opportunity with it.

However we did get to use it in a nightfire exercise in its tripod configuration and managed to totally waste a barrel...and the MG3 was an already downthrotteled MG42.

So you really need to take care of the overheating problem.

 

[slysniper]

If you had to go to combat and you have only these two weapons to choose from for yourself and your life depended on it, which would you take.

That maybe solves the debate, for you anyway. 

MG's always seem like the weapon of death and destruction. But they are weak if not supported by other units.

So, if I had to rate it for all situations one might find themselves in,  then also for the fact of which would likely have less down time in combat, and which would I prefer to have to pack around in all types of terrain, then the Bren is my choice.

 

If all I have to do is sit in a defensive positions, I have two other MG's also covering the same area and I have a crew of men to support the weapon, then of course the MG 42 is my weapon of choice.

 

Everything has a purpose, the trick is to get the best out of what each is designed for.

[Erwin]

Is the MG3 still set for 1000-1300 rounds/min?  Or can one lower the rate?  

[Brille]

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

Is the MG3 still set for 1000-1300 rounds/min?  Or can one lower the rate?  

~1200 rpm with no option to alter it.

 

The successor of the MG3, the MG5, however can be set to 3 different rates of fire. Though even the highest one (around 800 I believe) doesn´t come close to the MG3.

 

[Centurian52]

13 hours ago, Brille said:

@Centurian52 I watched a YouTube video from Lindybeige once who compared the "Spandaus" with the Bren and give it a little praise.

He also came up with most of your arguments.

I guess it is not the matter of "which one is better". Both weapons were made with different mind sets and therefore have different properties.

It is like the old debate of which bolt action of ww 2 is better.

I often read that the Kar 98k has an advantage in accuracy above all the other ones even the Enfield. But more accuracy by what is not so often stated if at all and If it really had much of an impact on the battlefield.

And in the end just because one weapons is good or better in one or multiple aspects doesnt make the other ones bad or worthless.

 

I have fired the MG3 2 or 3 times back in my conscription days and could not hit the broadside of a barn with it.

But we only got something around 30 rounds for each of the instances which would be somewhat of 2 to 3 bursts when you are not yet trained in firecontrol. So besides of me being a lousy shot we got not much opportunity with it.

However we did get to use it in a nightfire exercise in its tripod configuration and managed to totally waste a barrel...and the MG3 was an already downthrotteled MG42.

So you really need to take care of the overheating problem.

 

I remember watching Lindybeige's video a while back. That's what first made me aware that there was even a debate at all. I think he did a decent job with that video overall, though he did repeat the Bren accuracy myth and the MG42 inaccuracy myth. I disagree with his overall conclusion. I still think the MG42 is probably better than the Bren, though I've come to realize that they're much closer than I used to think. When I started making my way through James Holland's books, and he also proclaimed the Bren to be better (though he also repeated both of the accuracy myths), I realized that there is apparently a lot more debate on the issue than I knew. While neither LindyBeige nor James Holland were able to convince me that the Bren is actually better, they did manage to convince me that there is an interesting discussion to be had, hence this thread.

As for the Kar 98k vs SMLE, I suspect the Kar 98k may be suffering from a similar accuracy myth to the Bren. I've seen a couple of videos of shooters comparing the accuracy they could achieve with the Kar 98k and SMLE (Bloke on the Range most recently, and the other video was long enough ago that I don't remember who it was). And despite both of them complaining that they didn't like the Kar 98k's sights as much as the SMLE's sights, they both achieved very similar shot groupings with both weapons. I remember in the first video (the one that I don't remember who made it) the shooter achieved about 2 MOA with both rifles. Which is more than adequate accuracy for a military rifle. The SMLE is definitely a bit better in a handful of minor ways (bolt is right next to the firing hand so it's a smaller and quicker motion to operate it, the bolt is pulled back a shorter distance so you don't have to move your head and lose your sight picture, magazine takes ten rounds rather than just five), but I don't think they add up to a tangible battlefield advantage.

For the most part WW2 bolt-action rifles all have pretty much identical battlefield performance (there's basically nothing at all to choose from between a Kar 98k, a MAS-36, a Mosin Nagant, and an M1903 Springfield). I did watch April 9th recently, about the German invasion of Denmark in 1940 (the first battle scene in that movie gives an excellent demonstration of just how rapidly a no.2 gunner can reload an LMG with a top-loaded magazine, though in this case it's a Madsen rather than a Bren). And the Krag-Jorgensen rifle that the Danish troops are equipped with is most definitely very tangibly worse than other WW2 bolt-action rifles. It's perfectly accurate and reliable, but it can't be reloaded by 5-round stripper clips like every other rifle. Instead you have to reload it one round at a time through a door in the side of the rifle. Absolutely a state-of-the-art rifle when it entered service in 1889, but there are downsides to being one of the first smokeless powder rifles ever designed (no one thought to design it to accommodate clips because no one had invented clips yet).

Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. Back to machine guns. Yes I believe the Bundeswehr MG3 is downthrottled to 1200 rpm (though the MG3 comes with options, and other armies that use it have downthrottled it to as low as 800 rpm). I believe the MG42 also had a bit of a range, depending on how heavy of a bolt you used, of between 900 and 1500 rpm. I think the default was near the top of that range, otherwise 1200 rpm wouldn't have been considered much of a downthrottling. James Holland certainly likes to talk a lot about just how much of an issue overheating was for the MG42. That's one reason why I really hope that small-arms overheating is modeled in CM3, so I can see for myself just how much of an issue it really would have been.

Edited February 28 by Centurian52

[Centurian52]

16 minutes ago, Brille said:

~1200 rpm with no option to alter it.

There are no switches or buttons on the weapon to change the firing rate. You change the firing rate by swapping out the bolts (heavier bolt if you want a slower rate of fire, lighter bolt if you want a faster rate of fire). This will have been done in advance by the army adopting the MG3, so I don't believe there is any way for the end-user to pick their own preferred rate of fire.

[Centurian52]

Bloke on the Range figured his shot groups with the Kar 98k and SMLE were around 2 inches, and he was firing at 50 yards. That comes out to a hair under 4 MOA. Not as good as the 2 MOA that I remember the first guy claiming (I wish I could find that first video, but it's been years), but still perfectly adequate accuracy for military rifles (I remember being told that my M16A2 was accurate to within about 4 MOA). Whether these are 2 MOA rifles, 4 MOA rifles, or somewhere in between, it seems that neither of the shooters that I've seen comparing them so far were able to find a meaningful difference in their accuracy.

[Anthony P.]

I'm surprised how long it took for Lindy's Bren vs MG42 video to be mentioned (I was sure that the OP would be about it when I first saw the title).

In CM it's clearly the MG42 though, the Bren is nowhere near. I don't think number 2s (hehe) assisting the loading process would make much difference. The Bren gunner still has to take aim again, and spread his fire, and that feature would also reduce the reload time for the MG42 by a significant margin.

[Centurian52]

12 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

I'm surprised how long it took for Lindy's Bren vs MG42 video to be mentioned (I was sure that the OP would be about it when I first saw the title).

In CM it's clearly the MG42 though, the Bren is nowhere near. I don't think number 2s (hehe) assisting the loading process would make much difference. The Bren gunner still has to take aim again, and spread his fire, and that feature would also reduce the reload time for the MG42 by a significant margin.

I think I saw LindyBeige's video years ago. If he was the only one to ever bring this up, I don't think I ever would have made this thread. It was really James Holland who gave me the kick to start taking another look at this. I vehemently disagreed with LindyBeige when I first saw his video, but I had warmed up to his arguments a bit by the time I started reading James Holland.

I'm betting that even if both assisted loading and overheating made it into the game, the MG42 would still come out ahead. Combat Mission may not be representing them perfectly, and assisted loading and overheating may close the gap a bit, but I doubt the game is off by all that much.

Don't discount how much of a difference assisted loading would make though. Yes, it would speed up the reloading of the MG42 a fair amount. Having a bit of help can really speed up the loading of a belt-fed weapon. But for a top-loaded magazine-fed weapon the difference is night and day. The gunner doesn't even need to lose his aim. I'd highly recommend watching April 9th (Danish war movie, search for either April 9th or 9 April). Mostly because it's a really good war movie that I recommend to everyone at every opportunity, but also because that first battle scene gives a really great demonstration of how quickly the assistant can reload a Madsen (which is also a top-loaded magazine-fed LMG, like the Bren).

[db_zero]

I had the opportunity to fire a Bren Gun as well as a DP-27 some time ago. Also fired a Thompson and Sten. The Sten felt flimsy. Thompson was heavy for a SMG. Maybe one day I'll get to fire a MG-42.

I agree in CM the MG42 comes out ahead.

[LuckyDog]

I'm sure both weapons are accurate; the question is, where is the barrel pointing? This raises the idea of bias and precision—i.e., grouped shots but off-target centre (top right of the attachment). I've fired a Bren; honestly, my lack of control meant it went quickly off target. I know someone trained will do way better, but when both weapons weigh roughly the same, having a higher volume of fire would seem less controllable. This shouldn't matter if you have a close group of targets and want to put as much lead on them as possible before they scatter. But how long can you do this before you are off-target and wasting ammo?

At a longer range, does the lack of control lead to a Noisy/Inaccurate situation (top left)? How much difference is there in the effective fire rate if I have to reduce my fire to small bursts for controllability? I read somewhere that Bren gunners were trained to move frequently to make return fire less effective (sorry, I can't remember where). This is a potential addition to the host of soft factors other posters have mentioned.

My two cents is that the choice is somewhat dictated by the encounter range. Closer - MG42; Longer - Bren. I have no idea where the dividing line is, but I do know I don't want to be shot at by either!

[Centurian52]

I think they're probably both pretty good at long range. So I don't think the range would be much of a factor in which one I'd choose. One of the benefits that LMGs provide over other types of automatic weapons like SMGs or assault rifles is that they can provide stable and accurate automatic fire at long ranges (though not quite as stable and accurate as tripod mounted MMGs or HMGs). Something you might notice in the modern titles is that your assault rifles provide accurate fire at long range, and automatic fire at close range, but only your MGs can provide accurate automatic fire at long range.

One thought that did occur to me as far as Bren vs MG42 accuracy is that I believe it was a point of doctrine for the Bren to use semi-automatic fire at long ranges in order to make it difficult for the enemy to figure out where it was (it blends in more with all of the rifles if it's firing single shots). Perhaps firing single shots with the Bren at long ranges led many gunners to believe that it was more accurate than other MGs, when in fact most MGs are that accurate. It's just that most MGs are rarely used to fire single shots.

Edited March 21 by Centurian52

[db_zero]

Accuracy while important may be relevant. My impression is during WW2 most of the time infantry weapons being fired was just directed in the general vicinity of where you though the enemy was and wasn't accurately aimed but something like snap shots. Suppression was the goal and the vast majority of casualties was caused by the mortars and artillery if available. Machine guns were particularly useful because they could put out a lot of suppressive fire which while not particularly accurate was good at suppressing the opponent. Also being usually crew served, they actually were fired as the crews reassured each other.

Many times too experienced soldiers would tell new replacements to fire at areas where the enemy might be, even if no fire or enemy was spotted. Issues of collateral damage and ROEs were generally much looser back then. It was total war.

What I find interesting is the modeling of machine guns between Combat Mission and the other hard core game Gravteam. Machine guns in Gravteam are truly frighting weapons, especially the crew served German MG34s and 42s.  When mounted on a tripod and I'm presuming using the telescopic sight a well placed MG will easily hold up a company. Even the individually carried MGs in a squad are terrifying. Being under MG fire in CM and Gravteam is a completely different experience. 

I also have Tank Warfare Tunisia where the American and British are present, but haven't play that as much so can say what the American MGs and Brens are like.

[Brille]

 

Nothing substantial here but boy that is frightening. And yeah, soldiers most likely would not have been firing this way if not in immense panic or danger but still...

Edited April 7 by Brille